I say no, not to disagree, but just because in the past, interactive movies have been a bit of a flop, and though choose-your-own adventure type movies look good, I think studios will keep making plain movies for at least a few more years.

Movies are much more accessible to everyone, and much cheaper as well.

Also, eliminating movies would eliminate an important part of the social structure.

I can just picture someone asking a girl out on a first date....

"Hey, I was wondering.... do you want to go out and play that new strategy game next week?"

Besides, you have to realize not everyone is a gamer, and not everyone would want to get together with their buddies to play the latest game... it's just not something that is widely acceptable.

Going out to the movies isn't just about the movie itself, it's about you and your friends getting out of the house, away from stress elsewhere, hanging out, and just having a good time (also, the dark theatre and armrest-sharing seats can be a great venue to get in some makeout time with your girl ).

Plain and simple.... NO, games will not replace movies.... ever.
They are two completely different sides of the entertainment spectrum.

_________________"Who's chair is that?... who put that G**Damn chair here? It's not my chair. Not my chair not my problem, that's what I say"

I don't think so. there's always that twinge of reality in having a real person do something.

effects will become more complex and stuff, but you gotta remember, a lot of the famous ones were done by real people. when you know it's actually a person jumping off a cliff, or being shot at, it adds a little bit of "oomph"

but 3D characters might take over real actors though, have you guys seen that movie FINAL FANTASY back in the year 2002?

Yes, I have, and it was an amazing movie (not favored among FF fans considering it has NOTHING to do with FF), but how many animated movies of that scale are there really? It costs far less and takes much less time to use real actors instead of CG ones with the actors' voices behind them (it took more than 4 years to make the movie Monsters Inc, imaging how long they were working on Advent Children ).

Dragonathan wrote:

eventually 3D characters will take over the real actor's job one by one... the MATRIX is a good example.

Hardly.
I mean.... The Matrix?I only remember a handful of scenes where the actors were replaced with CG ones (and those were only the the REALLY over-the-top parts, most were done the old-fashioned way).

_________________"Who's chair is that?... who put that G**Damn chair here? It's not my chair. Not my chair not my problem, that's what I say"

I"m sure to do monsters inc again today would be a lot easier. with a graphics designing computer, and a decent physics engine, if you were to animate the wireframe, add the hair (they animated all of sulley's however many hairs individually. and cheers to them for it) and run it, chances are it would speed up a little bit, but also, real actors tend to be cheaper.

from the movie Stewart Little (I remember watching it at my, what, 6th, 7th B-day party?) it cost ~10 million bucks for a 360 view , unanimated, of the little rodent.it's usually cheaper if you just throw 20 mil at an actor than to throw 50 mil (at least) at an animation team.though nowadays, prices are getting lower, and technology is getting easier to find (to use the lighting engine on Toy Story prolly cost about $100,000, but I got a hold of about 5-8 games using it for $50. (it's integrated into the source engine, with improvements))

No. Just like FryLock said, movies haven't killed the book, and games won't kill the movie.

Sure there are points in games where it feels like more of a movie, but you usually get to control what happens in real time.

You can't do that for movies, which is why people go to cinemas to sit in nice comfy chairs, in a air conditioned room, eaching natchos and getting a good brain-gasm of explosions, guns, boobies, and other good stuff on a very large screen, in true surround sound!